Next-word probabilities from language models have been shown to successfully simulate human reading behavior. Building on this, we show that, interestingly, instruction-tuned large language models (LLMs) yield worse psychometric predictive power (PPP) for human reading behavior than base LLMs with equivalent perplexities. In other words, instruction tuning, which helps LLMs provide human-preferred responses, does not always make them human-like from the computational psycholinguistics perspective. In addition, we explore prompting methodologies in simulating human reading behavior with LLMs, showing that prompts reflecting a particular linguistic hypothesis lead LLMs to exhibit better PPP but are still worse than base LLMs. These highlight that recent instruction tuning and prompting do not offer better estimates than direct probability measurements from base LLMs in cognitive modeling.

In computational linguistics, it has been shown that hierarchical structures make language models (LMs) more human-like. However, the previous literature has been agnostic about a parsing strategy of the hierarchical models. In this paper, we investigated whether hierarchical structures make LMs more human-like, and if so, which parsing strategy is most cognitively plausible. In order to address this question, we evaluated three LMs against human reading times in Japanese with head-final left-branching structures: Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) as a sequential model and Recurrent Neural Network Grammars (RNNGs) with top-down and left-corner parsing strategies as hierarchical models. Our computational modeling demonstrated that left-corner RNNGs outperformed top-down RNNGs and LSTM, suggesting that hierarchical and left-corner architectures are more cognitively plausible than top-down or sequential architectures. In addition, the relationships between the cognitive plausibility and (i) perplexity, (ii) parsing, and (iii) beam size will also be discussed.

In computational psycholinguistics, various language models have been evaluated against human reading behavior (e.g., eye movement) to build human-like computational models. However, most previous efforts have focused almost exclusively on English, despite the recent trend towards linguistic universal within the general community. In order to fill the gap, this paper investigates whether the established results in computational psycholinguistics can be generalized across languages. Specifically, we re-examine an established generalization -- the lower perplexity a language model has, the more human-like the language model is -- in Japanese with typologically different structures from English. Our experiments demonstrate that this established generalization exhibits a surprising lack of universality; namely, lower perplexity is not always human-like. Moreover, this discrepancy between English and Japanese is further explored from the perspective of (non-)uniform information density. Overall, our results suggest that a cross-lingual evaluation will be necessary to construct human-like computational models.